From: bop@gmb.dk   
      
   Le Chaud Lapin skrev 2012-07-02 20:15:   
   >   
   > To be clear, I have no problem at all with Microsoft extensions like:   
   >   
   > _declspec()   
   > __stdcall   
   > __pascal   
   > __uuidof()   
   > etc.   
   >   
   > All of these are things that are additive to standard C++,   
   > and I use them at my own risk. When I look at them, I think   
   > "These are not C++ keywords.", and they do not interfere with my   
   > C++ concept space.   
   >   
   > But if I see the word "class", as a keyword, then I have   
   > certain expectations about the semantics of that keyword, according   
   > to the C++ standard, and if those expectations are violated by,   
   > for example, not making the member functions private by default,   
   > then to me, that is changing the semantics of a fundamental C++   
   > keyword.   
   >   
      
   But you have to accidentally write "interface class" for that to happen.   
   What are the odds for doing that by mistake?   
      
   And if you were to write "enum class", also mentioned in the paper, that   
   now IS correct C++.   
      
      
   Bo Persson   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)